Talk:Creation Museum/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 18 August 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Biological "theme

I am trying out a biological theme here with an evolutionary bent. I did a "conspecifics" section and am thinking we can do something like "Ecology of creation museums" looking at where these places usually pop up, "the prey of creation museums" who goes to these things? And then maybe an analysis of Ken Ham's museum for how it fits into these categories? Just trying out some idea...thoughts? Tmtoulouse 10:23, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

It hath been doneth!

cp:Creation museum <-- Somebody actually created it. And... uh... just read it. At the time of this writing, there is only one version (Quicklink), but wow. It's worth it. Imagine an actually concise Conservative at work. --Sid 06:17, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

nah, it has now been zappeth. --CatWatcher 14:25, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Ken Ham, there's something not kosher about that guy... --Kels 14:26, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Really? What makes you think that? MiddleMan

Well, first, there's the foreskin.DocSock 12:25, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

I could not resist

AP Newsbreak: Creation Museum's 'Adam' shared sexual exploits online

Linden tells the AP that he is no longer affiliated with the site.

A check of “whois”, though, says otherwise:

• Registrant:
• Eric Linden
• […]
• Los Angeles, California […]
• United States

• Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
• Domain Name: BEDROOMACROBAT.COM
• Created on: 30-Jan-06
• Expires on: 30-Jan-08
• Last Updated on: 26-Jan-07

--TimS 14:55, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

Seems Mike Gannon-ish--PalMD^{-yada yada} 15:08, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

Creation Museum Figures

I'm really looking forward to seeing how they'll do, business-wise. I'm frightened by the distinct possibility they'll do OK, though I'm hoping for a meteor strike. I really hope I can get there before I miss this great monument to Blind Stupidity. Doggedpersistance 15:55, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

I think the Monument to Blind Stupidity actually rests on a Florida beach (which will soon be under all that run-off from the Greenland ice sheet), funded in part by Ed Poor. CЯacke® 21:47, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

New info

See this, also, catch PBS's NOVA tomorrow night for a show on ID.--PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 15:29, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Great tour. I'm actually pretty impressed with the purely technical aspects of that "museum". Seems like a really professional design and setup. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 18:03, 12 November 2007 (EST)

It is quite pretty inside and would rival any "secular" museum around in those terms. Apart from that they could have saved 25 million dollars by telling people to go read Genesis.Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 23:02, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Reference for the year end money beg

I changed the reference because the "Bluegrass Report" is notoriously liberal (and run by a Democratic party person). I figured the AiG request would make more sense. Researcher 22:59, 18 December 2007 (EST)

I merged the two of them: "we report you decide"?-αmεσ (mission accomplished!) 23:00, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Works for me. If anyone who actually LIKES the Museum reads this, then they can see what Bluegrass Report has to say about it. Researcher 23:03, 18 December 2007 (EST)

coconuts

Quote: "when asked why the T - rex had six inch long serrated teeth the guide will explain that those were for opening coconuts." Funniest thing I read recently. Made me laugh out loud.--Bob^{bing up} 05:28, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Page move.

Nope. it IS a museum, just nao a terribly good one. Not a "museum." RaoulDuke 13:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll admit that I am taking my cue from PZ Myers on this one. It does infuriate me that anyone should consider this on the same level as a museum that is actually dedicated to the advancement of human knowledge and understanding. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 13:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that something like Wikipedia would not and should not use "Museum" but, from the perspective of RW, it does seem appropriate. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 13:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing against the title, just discussion first would have been nice. You fixed the links? - π 13:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with the page title move, but adding some quotation marks within the article itself is OK with me. Aboriginal Noise ^{with 4 M's and a silent Q} 13:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I did let things get the better of me. I still think that it is appropriate. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 13:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

To be consistent we'd need to change this one as well.--Bob^{Not Jim} 14:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree and I was about to, but I held up after this section topic was created. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 14:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The more I think about this the more silly the idea seems. I support moving it back. - π 14:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. It's really a propaganda device rather than a "museum" isn't it? --Bob^{Not Jim} 14:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You could say the exact same thing about every other national history museum in the world--starting with the Smithsonian, the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the Imperial War Museum or the British Museum. Museums are incredibly important lieux de mémoire where memory-making, nation-building and community-building take place. We call it "propaganda" only when we disagree with the ideologies that underpin the process. RaoulDuke 16:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"Museum" = snark = good. End. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 16:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I support moving it back as well. It is a museum, just the Confusion Museum, like Prof. Park said. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This is just about the quote marks and not the word museum, right? In which case I agree with Neveruse and Edgerunner above. It's RW styled snark and doesn't really comment on whether other museums use propaganda or not - we're working with the broad and nobel use that people think museum stands for; a building which records history with academic honesty, and the CM blatantly isn't this sort of thing. ^pathetic 17:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

But it is the name of the facility, like it or not. Are we going to start referring to AiG as "Answers" in "Genesis"? Aboriginal Noise ^{with 4 M's and a silent Q} 17:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What he said. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that really follows on at all. AiG is both a name and reasonably accurate, and an original title at that, while "Creation Museam" is slightly less dramatically patentable... but of course, that's subjective but I'm pretty sure this uses museum in a more weasel-worded sense. But does this matter at all? If peopel feel strongly about it, revert it back. ^pathetic 17:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to "Answers" in Genesis either. What's next? Do you fuckers want to move "hell" to "Hell" in another lame attempt to conform to a MoS? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a whole bunch of stuffz we could add quotes to - why just these few? all the argument from... articles should be "argument" from..., and there's "church" of scientology, "compassionate" conservatism, extrasensory "perception"... I could go on all day. TLDR - move it back or do them all. Totnesmartin 17:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The demand for consistency on this wiki is patently absurd. LX's actions were preemptive. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

One prerequisite for rationality is consistency. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice quip, you should put that on a mug or something, but I don't think it applies to the Manual of Style on RW (or lack thereof). ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs}

Why I moved the page back

Superfluous quote marks or other point-making in a page's title is not proper for mainspace pages, as readers of the Wiki will be faced with an unnecessary redirect when looking up Creation Museum, which is its recognized and proper name, however inappropriate some of us may find that. I have put the quote marks in the DISPLAYTITLE of the page until the debate here has concluded. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

FTR, I am much happier with this than having the actual page name contain quotations or using an unnecessary redirect. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If anything, shouldn't the quotation marks be around "creation"? Seriously, no quote marks in the page title, but keep them in the opening line of the article. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's obviously time for a pointless vote. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

<joke>Perhaps we should compromise on single quotation marks?</joke>--Bob^{Not Jim} 18:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd actually take that as a very humorous compromise. However, I feel it'd be lost on some of our more straitlaced comrades. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The quotes are lame IMHO. Do we scare over "creation" or "museum"? Also, "cquote" is a totally sucky template and eats up space, can we use something better - or fix the damn template? ħuman 08:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the "cquote2" template from Wikipedia could be used? ListenerX^TalkerX 21:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

What's it look like? ħuman 21:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, that QB2 looks a lot better, especially with the quotes split up. ħuman 21:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Review

In Vanity Fair (courtesy PZ) ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 12:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Dinosaurs

The headline of the dinosaur picture says that long necked sauropods with spines on their necks are 'unheard of', however, in walking with dinosaurs,the diplodocuses have spines on their necks

P.S Do they really believe dinosaurs and humans lived together?Are they even more mad than most creationists?--Thedoctor80 (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

If you take Genesis literally you have to believe that. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Worth having a separate Ark Park article?

The Ark Park saga is becoming long and amusing, is it worth separating it out in to it's own article? Personally, I can't wait for next month's bond issue. No one in their right mind would touch those bonds, looking at it I'd be astonished if they can even cover their debt, let alone do the projected expansion. My prediction is they can't raise the 60mm they need to even start building the thing. People'd have to be nuts. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

If nothing else, people should have a look at the Sensuous Curmudgeon and Naturalis Historiae on AiG. AiG's failure warm my heart. The depth of their dishonesty and creepiness makes me wary of creationists everywhere. What else could you want from a "leading creationist" outfit? 03:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

did the ARk ever get started ? certainly something on the states contribution should be mentioned, although they can justify it on employment / tourism grounds. I had hoped for a volcano spewing stuffed animals across the park ! Hamster (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can gather from the public pronouncements, AiG's failure to scrape up the 24 million they initially wanted to invest caused all the other investors they had lined up to back away hurriedly from the project, hence the debt financing. The tax breaks from Kentucky state are now in some doubt. They were originally scheduled to open in spring of this year, and all now they've missed the deadlines imposed. They'd need to reapply, and of course the smaller scope of the project means they can't hope to get the same level of tax breaks they got previously. I'm not sure what plan B is now if they can't shift 60mm worth of bonds to gullible Christians. It would be difficult to raid AiG for the cash because of its for-profit nature, and folding the whole thing into AiG would mean they're on the hook for any debt incurred. As I said last year, it's looking less and less likely this thing will ever be built. I think there's a good chance that AiG will be left with an empty site they'll have to sell back to Williamsburg for a dime on the dollar and considerable egg on their faces for having raised money for something that will never exist. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction

• Creation Museum Attendance Drops for Fourth Straight Year
• Kentucky’s ‘Creation Museum’ in Financial Trouble Due to Declining Attendance (VIDEO)
• After Three Years Creation Museum Is Evolving (But Not In That Way)

The other two sources contradict the Huffington Post article. Which is correct? Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Look at the dates of the stories, they cove quite a time span. That should give you a sense of the progression of the attendance. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 17:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

We need to check if attendance picks up next year, an alternative is that Ken Sham hoodwinked a Huffington Post reporter. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

You can't use attendance statistics from 2013 to argue that in 2010 someone lied about then-current statistics. Let me lay it out for you: in 2010, the HuffPo reported that attendance had been trending one way. By late 2013, other sources reported that the trend had reversed. Three years is a long time, and you don't need to besmirch the reputation of a semi-legitimate news source to see how that works. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 14:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

They have the current date at the top of the page and the date the article was posted is lower down and easy to overlook. That may have been unintentional but it misled me into thinking the article was recent. You're right, the Huff Post article is irrelevant to the current situation. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I know I'm right. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 18:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

So is the current barely literate stuff in the article accurate or not? ħuman 04:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it's accurate, the link from 2010 has been there a long time, I didn't add it. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Images from the exhibits

http://imgur.com/a/9MGzZ The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 00:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Interesting finance

Does anyone have ideas how to make the section, Creation Museum#Problematic finance more interesting? Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Ark Encounter Is A Financial DISASTER, Ken Ham In A Panic Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Split Creation Museum and Ark Encounter

This article seems to want to be split into two. It might be easier to get one or both to silver-level quality if they were split. Any objections? Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I won't object. The section you want to split does seem big, distinct, and detailed on its own to be its own article. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 03:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Quotation "marks"

Why the quotation marks around the word "museum" every single time it appears on the page? They add nothing and just serve to make the cadence of the writing really damn weird. BT383 (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Aside from being snarky, it's not actually a museum. It's more of an insane art gallery. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but I think the first couple of times, assisted by the actual word in the article, put that point across fairly effectively. After a while, it really wears a bit thin. BT383 (talk) 10:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Question for those who have visited "that"

Just being curious... is that thing about the entire Bible, up to the Book of Revelation?. I'm curious on how they may have represented what's narrated in the latter.

Oh, and the Stegosaurus of the entrance looks badly designed, dragging its tail unless it's being lazy. --Panzerfaust (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Genesis

In the section What the heck is "the Bible"?, is that supposed to say Genesis 1 through 11? It currently says Genesis 1:11, which is just a verse about seeds. --Vital Forces (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Vital Forces After reading and re-reading the sentence in question I am led to believe that it does indeed refer to Genesis 1 through 11, rather than Genesis chapter 1 verse 11. I have thus edited the article to reflect this. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

What other creation museums

What other creation museums are out there? I think it would be interesting to look at their "evolution" over time Tmtoulouse 22:14, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

I find it interesting that CP has no entry on the Creation Museum at all. --Kels 22:18, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

The supposedly-Christian cp also didn't have an article on Charity until I created it[1]--PalMD^-Talk 22:22, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

True, but charity doesn't fall into the propaganda that their ideology demands, and something like the creation museum does. It's also attached to their beloved AiG, so you'd think there'd be something. --Kels 22:28, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

OK, but they also did not have an article on the American Flag or Pledge of Allegiance until I created them. I was shocked, I tell you, shocked, at this omission! human^{be in} 11:22, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

Yes, dinosaurs and humans have co-existed...

And still do. They are called birds, the last survivors of the dinosaur line. Nobody would confuse T. Rex with a sparrow, although by behavior one can think of animals similarly bloodthisty.Pbrower2a (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)